BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
| quality of mp3s isn't that bad
I think a lot of people are underestimating the quality of mp3 files that can be found on most p2p networks. For most songs (unless it's really rare or really old), it's very easy to find an mp3 encoded in at least 192kbps, which most people will have a hard time distinguishing from the original, especially if it's encoded with lame. With the newer songs, I've found that many are VBR-encoded in lame, at probably the alt-standard preset. The quality of that file will be completely indistinguishable on all but the most high-end of equipment.
The people flocking to buy heavily compressed stuff from itunes are mostly sheep who don't know any better, but they are not the majority. |
|
CPUYODA
join:2003-01-25
Johnson City, TN | Discs may be,but players aren't....lol |
|
Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA | reply to BIGHUSKER
but anyways in Robert's world compression should be a non issue, since his world is a world with limitless broadband bandwidth / connectivity. |
|
Whatever12
@anonymizer.com
| reply to BIGHUSKER
Wrong, the quality of MP3s blows. I can tell on pretty much any system. From a $300 Sony receiver, in my car, almost anywhere but the lowest end speakers. The only system so far I couldn't tell the difference between MP3 and CD is a pair of 99c computer speakers I bought. MP3 have an awful upper end that hurts my ears. In MP3s hi-hats sound like someone hitting a tin sheet with a banana. Awful awful awful. |
|
BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | said by Whatever12:
Wrong, the quality of MP3s blows. I can tell on pretty much any system. From a $300 Sony receiver, in my car, almost anywhere but the lowest end speakers. The only system so far I couldn't tell the difference between MP3 and CD is a pair of 99c computer speakers I bought. MP3 have an awful upper end that hurts my ears. In MP3s hi-hats sound like someone hitting a tin sheet with a banana. Awful awful awful. You likely don't understand much about the different encoders and bitrates, and I think that's a correct assumption because you did nothing to dispute my claims but tell me I'm "wrong" and go on a misinformed diatribe without even bothering to sign in with your username. I've found that most of the people who make these "mp3s are awful" claims do not understand that there are several factors that go into determining the quality of a particular mp3. There are *several* different encoders, *several* different programs to rip music off the CD, and several different bitrates an mp3 can be encoded in.
Some encoders do have range issues on the "high-end", most notably cymbals sound something like "hitting a tin sheet with a banana." However, lame is not one of them, assuming you're using a decent bitrate. *Most* audiophiles agree that mp3s encoded with the latest stable release of lame in the alt-standard preset (roughly equivalent to 192kbps VBR) are indiscernible from the original lossless source material.
Either you aren't encoding your mp3s correctly, or you're getting low-quality encodes off p2p. Maybe you have super-human ears and can tell a *slight* difference, but if you really think properly encoded mp3s "blow", then you're doing something wrong when encoding. Learn how to do it correctly by reading the following links:
»www.ubernet.org/
»www.bestmp3guide.com/ |
|
Whatever12
@anonymizer.com
| Wrong again. I'm quite familiar with encoders. Tried LAME at 192 with and without VBR and other encoders up to 384. For ripping I use Plextools, always made sure I got a 100% perfect wav before encoding. If you think LAME produces accurate highs... I'm not sure what to say. There's tons of research that can prove you wrong. I'm no audiophile, I only have midrange equipment, but it's sad when you say audiophiles can't tell the difference between MP3s and CD. FYI, I never use P2P, and I'll say it again. MP3 audio quality blows. If you can't tell the difference, fine. I and many other people can. |
|
Bigpoppa206
@comcast.net | HUGE difference! I've been a professional nightclub DJ for 30 years and should be deaf by now, but there is a world of difference in a 192 kbps rip and a CD quality WAV file. Too bad so many people cannot tell the difference though. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to BIGHUSKER
MP3s are CD quality as far as the system in my chevy is concerned. thats right stock GM speakers mean i cant tell the difference, and i am with the majority on this one. infact most of us also arent looking for top end quality off of P2P if we wanted the very best we'd go and buy a CD. MP3s are good enough for pretty much anything unless you have spent more on your stereo then some used cars are worth.(i personally wonder how those people who use tube amps think 1920s tech is better then a 21st century circuit board for example)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Blisk
join:2001-01-15
Orlando, FL
| reply to Bigpoppa206
EAC (exact audio copy) in secure mode should be the only ripper you should ever use. poorly encoded mp3s are a result of imperfects from the rip, EAC won't have that.
Yes you can tell a different between lame encoded music and cd quality music esp. with classical music. Lame though in alt preset standard is still pretty decent as far as audio formats go. |
|
BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
3 edits | reply to Whatever12
said by Whatever12:Wrong again. I'm quite familiar with encoders. Tried LAME at 192 with and without VBR and other encoders up to 384.
Obviously you're not that farmiliar with mp3 technology. It's impossible to encode an mp3 at 384kbps. The maximum bitrate is 320kbps. Stop making stuff up to try and prove a point. I know far too much about this to be fooled by claims such as the one above. quote:
For ripping I use Plextools, always made sure I got a 100% perfect wav before encoding.
As someone else mentioned, you should only be ripping in Secure (or even Paranoid) mode in EAC, or the equivalent mode in "Plextools." If you're not, then you cannot be sure that you're getting a "100% percfect WAV." quote:
If you think LAME produces accurate highs... I'm not sure what to say. There's tons of research that can prove you wrong.
If there is "tons of research", then point me to it. You've shown me nothing. quote:
I'm no audiophile, I only have midrange equipment, but it's sad when you say audiophiles can't tell the difference between MP3s and CD. FYI, I never use P2P, and I'll say it again. MP3 audio quality blows. If you can't tell the difference, fine. I and many other people can.
If you do a blind test with preset-standard lame mp3s and the original CD track, and you can actually hear a difference on mid-range equipment, then you're in a very small minority of listeners. If you bump that to preset-extreme or preset-insane and can *still* hear a difference, then either your equipment is much higher-end than you're letting on, or you're superman.
|
|
BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | reply to Bigpoppa206
said by Bigpoppa206:
HUGE difference! I've been a professional nightclub DJ for 30 years and should be deaf by now, but there is a world of difference in a 192 kbps rip and a CD quality WAV file. Too bad so many people cannot tell the difference though.
There are many factors that determine the quality of an mp3 file..bitrate is only one of them. First of all, was the original source lossless? Was it ripped with EAC in Secure Mode? Was it encoded with lame? Yes, most people will notice a slight difference between 192kbps CBR and the original CD on high-end equipment. However, if you move to 192~200kbps VBR (preset standard in LAME), the difference is much more subtle, even on high-end equipment.
There are probably a few people that *can* hear a difference between preset-standard and the original, but the mp3s are simply not being properly encoded if you can hear "a world of difference." |
|
Whatever12
@anonymizer.com
| reply to BIGHUSKER
Obviously you're not that farmiliar with mp3 technology. It's impossible to encode an mp3 at 384kbps. The maximum bitrate is 320kbps. Stop making stuff up to try and prove a point. I know far too much about this to be fooled by claims such as the one above.
»lame.sourceforge.net/USAGE
--freeformat produce a free format bitstream. User must also specify a bitrate with -b, between 8 and 640 kbps.
Your favorite program can do 384kbps.
»mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/freeformat.html
Some players that go up to 640kbps.
As someone else mentioned, you should only be ripping in Secure (or even Paranoid) mode in EAC, or the equivalent mode in "Plextools." If you're not, then you cannot be sure that you're getting a "100% percfect WAV."
Yes, there is a verify that ensures a 100% accurate WAV which I always use.
If you do a blind test with preset-standard lame mp3s and the original CD track, and you can actually hear a difference on mid-range equipment, then you're in a very small minority of listeners. If you bump that to preset-extreme or preset-insane and can *still* hear a difference, then either your equipment is much higher-end than you're letting on, or you're superman.
»www.audioboxinc.com/quality.html
Statistically, two or more listeners will be present who can distinguish the difference between CD source audio and computer source audio AT ANY COMPRESSION LEVEL HIGHER THAN 6:1.
A majority of listeners can distinguish the difference between an MP3 audio file, at any compression level, and an uncompressed audio file.
Other people on this thread have said they can clearly tell the difference between MP3 and CD. I assure you I can, regardless of the ripping software, encoder, anything. I'm growing tired of your so called knowing "far to much about this" subject. You don't. You know far less than I do it seems. Some people can't tell the difference between well encoded MP3s and CDs. But some of my friends, co-workers, other people I've met (and myself) can. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Whatever12
Sure there is a difference between mp3 and 16 bit CD audio, but blows? If mp3 technology were that bad there would be no way it would proliferate this much. An mp3 recording sounds tons better than FM radio. Does FM blow? Well... if you said yes I would agree. You must have some really sensitive hearing if ever mp3 you have has a tinny sharp high end. Or maybe it is indeed the equipment you're using to encode (or master).
I have seen users who are all about audio quality use some really bad encoders. Personally I use MusicMatch to encode (highest quality is 320kbps) and have had no problems with tinny highs or muddy lows even at 128kbps (hardly ever encode lower than 192k). Yes at 128 the overall sound quality is not as good, but I get no "someone hitting a tin sheet with a banana" experience. Plus it's a hell of a lot better than FM when in my car. |
|
Whatever12
@anonymizer.com
| I don't agree with your statement that if MP3 was that bad it wouldn't proliferate. There are plenty of inferior technologies that do quite well do to cost, convenience, portability and so on. As to whether MP3 is better than FM... Both aren't good but have their relative strengths and weaknesses. With a very clear FM signal I'd prefer it slightly over MP3. But a lot of times I don't get a perfect FM signal and MP3 sounds better. If MP3 works for you, great. I know several people with iPods who love being able to carry around their music library. |
|
